Waived: Booth Compliance Buyout (per Bob Mckenzie)

[Aphid Attraction]

A couple of things.

First, you can't possibly understand because you aren't privy to what their planned moves are.

Second, forget about signing UFAs, think "trading" for players how may be effective but overpaid. Or something else, because I, like you, do am not in the Canucks mgmt circle.

So move "over paid for his production"... because the master plan is to bring in a presumed player "over paid for his production"...

LOL... lets just pray thtat the new overpaid guy only has one year left too

 

[bo2shink*]

I just wish now in hindsight, If players need to earn what they make, then Lou should have been brought out and we moved forward with all that cap space, and Schneider

While some may not believe it, the Canucks actually do operate as a business.

 

[Wildcarder]

As much as Booth frustrates me and as unreliable as he's been health wise (let alone production wise) I'm not sure if I like this move.

I'm only for this move if it means we can replace his effectiveness on the 3rd line cheaper which ideally would be to open up a spot to develop one of our young guys (Horvat, Jensen, etc.)

Otherwise Booth only had 1 year left and had shown he could work well on the 3rd line with Kassian. Also the Canucks are not hurting for cap space and the UFA market is extremely limited this summer.

 

[Bougieman]

The Canucks are just as far away from winning the cup as they are the lottery.

Man, I love this quote so much. I'd like to see it uttered every single time a Canucks fan pleads for a tanking by the team -- which is far too common for my liking.

This Booth move had to happen. I don't see what option Benning had, and still be taken seriously.

 

[me2]

While some may not believe it, the Canucks actually do operate as a business.

I believe that is the biggest reason Gillis got sacked, he was costing Aqualini $$$$ (buyouts, retaining salary, failing ticket sales). Aqualini likely hated seeing $800K per year come out of his pocket and go to Florida.

 

[Canuckz]

As much as Booth frustrates me and as unreliable as he's been health wise (let alone production wise) I'm not sure if I like this move.

I'm only for this move if it means we can replace his effectiveness on the 3rd line cheaper which ideally would be to open up a spot to develop one of our young guys (Horvat, Jensen, etc.)

Otherwise Booth only had 1 year left and had shown he could work well on the 3rd line with Kassian. Also the Canucks are not hurting for cap space and the UFA market is extremely limited this summer.

For the last 10 games....other than that terrible. 32 games without a goal streak anyone?

 

[Aphid Attraction]

While some may not believe it, the Canucks actually do operate as a business.

And? without comprehensive knowledge of Canucks Sports and Entertainment, this cannot be used as an excuse, nor can we speculate on what is a business decision and what is a hockey decision... all we will ever have to go on is hockey decisions, and that is how they will be judged...

especially since we were told by Benning and Gillis, that buying out Ballard and Booth, were hockey decisions and not business decisions

 

[damack]

I believe that is the biggest reason Gillis got sacked, he was costing Aqualini $$$$ (buyouts, retaining salary, failing ticket sales). Aqualini likely hated seeing $800K per year come out of his pocket and go to Florida.

if he hated seeing $800k, he must really hate $2m for Gillis, $2m for Torts and $3m or so for Booth added on to that

 

[biturbo19]

I understand that there was no need for Booth. I don't understand the need to buy him out when we could've used that remaining buyout as a bargaining chip. There is simply no way this team, once they trade Kesler, signs enough free agents to make Booth's cap hit matter. Especially if they move one of the defensemen.

As for roster space, that could've been solved by waiving Booth. Either he gets picked up or you free up $900k while he's playing in Utica.

(Situation would be different if this were a player with 2+ years on his contract.)

I think realistically from what we know of the Aquilinis operating mandate, buying out a guy like Booth with only that one year left was probably about as far as they were going to be willing to go in terms of heaping even more money onto the "paying people not to play for/coach/manage" this team. While they could certainly afford to use that last buyout as a "bargaining chip", i'm not sure how much of a willingness there would have been to use it that way on a player with more money than Booth remaining on their deal.

Plus, Booth eating up $3M+ in cap space to play for Utica would be a)an absurd waste, and b)a jerk move by Benning, who doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would do that to an established NHL Vet who can clearly still play in the NHL (just not at $4.2M).

 

[Shareefruck]

Man, I love this quote so much. I'd like to see it uttered every single time a Canucks fan pleads for a tanking by the team -- which is far too common for my liking.

Except it's not true, considering how easy it is to drop a few spots and how difficult it is to rise. They also finished 24th/30, which is nowhere near the middle.

If a Kesler deal is made for youth, Santorelli signs with another team, we don't pick up any significant UFA's, and Sedins/Bieksa/Burrows are another year older, we're not going to be much better than last year, IMO.

Hell, Lack having problems adjusting to a full workload alone could easily be enough to put us deep into the bottom half.

 

[coastal_nuck]

Except it's not true, considering how easy it is to drop a few spots and how difficult it is to rise. They also finished 24th/30, which is nowhere near the middle.

If a Kesler deal is made for youth, Santorelli signs with another team, we don't pick up any significant UFA's, and Sedins/Bieksa/Burrows are another year older, we're not going to be much better than last year, IMO.

Hell, Lack having problems adjusting to a full workload alone could easily be enough to put us deep into the bottom half.

Agreed. For a team as low scoring as ours last season, to lose Kesler and Santorelli would be another blow to the season's hopes. We will likely be a middle of the pack team if we go status quo. However, if anyone is significantly injured or Lack and Markstrom prove to be mediocre, we could be in for a top 10 selection again next year. Of course, this could all change depending on who we land in free agency. Still, one FA does not make a team and I can't say I have high hopes for the team next year.

 

[Shareefruck]

Agreed. For a team as low scoring as ours last season, to lose Kesler and Santorelli would be another blow to the season's hopes. We will likely be a middle of the pack team if we go status quo. However, if anyone is significantly injured or Lack and Markstrom prove to be mediocre, we could be in for a top 10 selection again next year. Of course, this could all change depending on who we land in free agency. Still, one FA does not make a team and I can't say I have high hopes for the team next year.

I hope it happens, personally-- We're not winning a cup next season under pretty much any scenario-- A top 10 pick next year is probably going to be better than what we get this season. That would be an ideal quick rebuild, IMO, especially if we somehow land Reinhart.

 

[Sharpshooter]

I hope it happens, personally-- We're not winning a cup next season under pretty much any scenario-- A top 10 pick next year is probably going to be better than what we get this season. That would be an ideal quick rebuild, IMO, especially if we somehow land Reinhart.

Agreed.

Getting Reinhart would be the icing on our rebuild cake as well.

 

[Bougieman]

 

[vanuck]

wow this is the worst day of my life

As long as they use the $$ wisely I'm ok with it.

If not, complete waste.

Agreed. Best of luck to him.

 

[vanuck]

I actually liked Booth. He was frustrating as **** to watch most nights, but I couldn't bring myself to hate him. That being said, I'm not exactly sad to see him go, but I hope he gets another job and gets his career somewhat back on track.

Agree with this.

I understand that there was no need for Booth. I don't understand the need to buy him out when we could've used that remaining buyout as a bargaining chip. There is simply no way this team, once they trade Kesler, signs enough free agents to make Booth's cap hit matter. Especially if they move one of the defensemen.

As for roster space, that could've been solved by waiving Booth. Either he gets picked up or you free up $900k while he's playing in Utica.

(Situation would be different if this were a player with 2+ years on his contract.)

This too. Exactly. I can't imagine them using up anywhere near the amount of space they make it seem like they're planning to; the Comets would be much better off with him on the roster too.

 

[dave babych returns]

People saying Booth was an effective third liner remind me of those who pined for the short lived Raymond-Wellwood-Bernier third line.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I understand that there was no need for Booth. I don't understand the need to buy him out when we could've used that remaining buyout as a bargaining chip. There is simply no way this team, once they trade Kesler, signs enough free agents to make Booth's cap hit matter. Especially if they move one of the defensemen.

As for roster space, that could've been solved by waiving Booth. Either he gets picked up or you free up $900k while he's playing in Utica.

(Situation would be different if this were a player with 2+ years on his contract.)

I'm still thinking about this. Why buy Booth out now, instead of later? They can't use the buyout to help facilitate a deal. Why take that option away?

My best guess: Behind the scenes, the NHL has clamped down on things that can be construed as circumvention. The spirit or intent of compliance buyouts as to help teams get out poor contracts while the NHL adopted a new CBA. Taking on another team's buyout does not serve the spirit of that rule - and so can be considered a circumvention of those rules.

I'll be curious to see if FLA does in fact trade Jovo to another team...

 

[putridgasbag]

I'm still thinking about this. Why buy Booth out now, instead of later? They can't use the buyout to help facilitate a deal. Why take that option away?

My best guess: Behind the scenes, the NHL has clamped down on things that can be construed as circumvention. The spirit or intent of compliance buyouts as to help teams get out poor contracts while the NHL adopted a new CBA. Taking on another team's buyout does not serve the spirit of that rule - and so can be considered a circumvention of those rules.

I'll be curious to see if FLA does in fact trade Jovo to another team...

I think the decision was based on who they want around/ on the team rather than monetary considerations. Management wanting guys that fit their mold and Booth is not it. What they are saying is that Booth would not make the team in any capacity at anytime during the next season and they did not want him in the minors. Obviously they feel that somebody else, anybody else will be better suited to this team than him.

Jovo only has a year at 4 mil (4.125 cap hit) and could be a serviceable 6,7,8, playing assistant on the right team. If Florida eats a little salary, say $800,000, then even Francesco might okay it.

 

[dave babych returns]

Did the league clarify last year that you can't trade a guy and then sign him after his buy out (eg. Tampa deals Vinny and some stuff, Vinny gets bought out out, Tampa signs Vinny on the cheap) OR that you can't trade a guy plus assets to a team planning to buy him out at all?

Have we seen that scenario at all yet - a team using a compliance buy out on a player with 0 GP for them?

 

[Finkle is Einhorn]

Did the league clarify last year that you can't trade a guy and then sign him after his buy out (eg. Tampa deals Vinny and some stuff, Vinny gets bought out out, Tampa signs Vinny on the cheap) OR that you can't trade a guy plus assets to a team planning to buy him out at all?

Have we seen that scenario at all yet - a team using a compliance buy out on a player with 0 GP for them?

I'm not certain that we have - which would lead me to believe that we're not privy to something here since it seems like such an easy way for rich teams to gain a competitive edge.

 

[Barney Gumble]

Jovo only has a year at 4 mil (4.125 cap hit) and could be a serviceable 6,7,8, playing assistant on the right team. If Florida eats a little salary, say $800,000, then even Francesco might okay it.

A few years ago. Right now, in the travel easy schedule of the Panthers, his body can't even hold up. What's the point of acquiring a guy well past his due date - in a *significantly* heavier travelling team like the Canucks? To keep the infirmary full? $800,000 ain't nearly enough in salary retention.

 

[Hammer79]

I'm still thinking about this. Why buy Booth out now, instead of later? They can't use the buyout to help facilitate a deal. Why take that option away?

My best guess: Behind the scenes, the NHL has clamped down on things that can be construed as circumvention. The spirit or intent of compliance buyouts as to help teams get out poor contracts while the NHL adopted a new CBA. Taking on another team's buyout does not serve the spirit of that rule - and so can be considered a circumvention of those rules.

I'll be curious to see if FLA does in fact trade Jovo to another team...

Vincent Lecavalier was almost traded to Toronto before his buyout, but Tampa wanted to re-sign him once the Leafs bought him out. Bettman wouldn't allow him to sign in Tampa again for one year, even if the Leafs bought him out.

 

[moog35]

As much as Booth frustrates me and as unreliable as he's been health wise (let alone production wise) I'm not sure if I like this move.

I'm only for this move if it means we can replace his effectiveness on the 3rd line cheaper which ideally would be to open up a spot to develop one of our young guys (Horvat, Jensen, etc.)

Otherwise Booth only had 1 year left and had shown he could work well on the 3rd line with Kassian. Also the Canucks are not hurting for cap space and the UFA market is extremely limited this summer.

Booth was an anchor for Kassian all season except for the last 10 games. Kassian would probably have more points if he wasn't stuck with Booth screwing up breakouts or passes all season long.

The guy sucked for 2 seasons was a distraction in the media and because he played alright in his last 10 games people all of a sudden thing we should have kept him? There is more than 10 games in a season unless your Booth last season who was a total band aid. He put up 9 goals and 19 points in 66 games this year while playing awful defensively

 

[Finkle is Einhorn]

The guy sucked for 2 seasons was a distraction in the media and because he played alright in his last 10 games people all of a sudden thing we should have kept him? There is more than 10 games in a season unless your Booth last season who was a total band aid. He put up 9 goals and 19 points in 66 games this year while playing awful defensively

The "what have you done for me lately" knife cuts both ways.